The objection
In John 1,1, theos appears without the definite article. Could the Word therefore be “a god” below the highest God—or merely God's initially impersonal plan?
1. A missing article does not automatically mean “a”
Greek has no indefinite article simply corresponding to the German “ein.” A noun without a definite article is therefore not automatically indefinite. John 1,6 already speaks without an article of God as the Baptist's sender. In 1,12–13, too, theos without an article designates the true God.
In 1,1, “the Word” is identifiable as the sentence's subject by its article. The preceding theos says what this Word is. Its qualitative meaning describes full deity, not a weakened resemblance to God. The so-called Colwell rule must not be applied mechanically here: Only the sentence structure and context determine the interpretation.[1]
2. What already existed stands opposite everything that came into being
John places three statements side by side: The Word was in the beginning, it was with God, and it was God. Verse 3 then follows with all things coming into being through the Word. This juxtaposition is the decisive line of reasoning: The Word belongs to what already exists at the beginning; creation belongs to what comes into being through this Word.[2]
If the Word were itself a being that came into existence, it would belong to the totality of what came into existence through the Word. It would then have to participate in its own coming into existence. The text expressly prevents this exception through the negative addition that not a single thing that came into being arose without the Word. The Creator–creature boundary runs between the Word and all things that came into being, not between the Father and the Word.
3. “With God” protects the personal distinction
The Word's full deity does not mean that the Word is the Father. It is with him. John 1,14 identifies that same Word as the one who became flesh; verse 17 names Jesus Christ. The prologue does not recount how an abstract idea eventually became a human independent of it. Throughout, it speaks of the Word who already existed and now became human.
The personal reading is confirmed in the Gospel: The Son recalls the glory he had with the Father before the world and the Father's love before the world (17,5.24). A mere plan does not love or possess glory with the planner.
4. The prologue determines how Jesus is to be read
“A god” in the sense of a lower divine being does not resolve the tension. This translation introduces a hierarchy into a text that precisely distinguishes all creation from the uncreated Word. And “merely a plan” explains neither the personal context nor the incarnation of that same Word.
John begins his Gospel with a reading instruction for everything that follows: The Jesus who hungers, suffers and dies is the eternal Word in truly human existence. His humiliation does not refute the opening statement. It shows how far the Son goes without ceasing to be who he is.
Biblical texts in context
Sources and further study
- NET Bible, translation note on John 1,1Qualitative sense of theos and limits of the Colwell rule; no deduction of “a god” solely from the missing article.
- Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian FaithCh. 8, “John 1:1,” pp. 299–301: preexistence, creation and incarnation.